Interesting links, but a little opinionated, IMHO.
I agree on principle, but the example of PC is really out of road: there are technical and economic reasons because chip cannot be compatible each other between different generations (I'm engineer and a technical marketing manager in a IT company, I know what I'm saying). I agree that sometimes (rarely) this is for marketing segmentation reasons, but in ITC market this is a practice cannot be used often, the market is too competitive and too swift. Moreover, differences are often due to revolutions in performances (as someone said, if car motors advanced at the same speed of microchips, we should all drive cars that fly at 3 times the speed of sound and cost less than 1000$).
About fashion, I completely agree. But changing people is more difficult than introducing a new technology.
Not all profits are the culprit, IMHO. You should divide them in two: creation and distribution. When you create more wealth (for example, you find a new way to use resources more efficiently) your profits are well due (if they are less than real value of your innovation) because the whole system profits.
When the game is a zero-sum game, should be no profits to who move money from poor or weak to powerful and rich.
IMO, of course.
About banks and commercial, I believe they could produce something (but today they cost more than they produce, as you notice). Bank should aggregate savings and move (lending) to innovators. Their useful work is aggregation (many little savings used as a big sum) and more than that identification of opportunities (find the innovators, find who have less risk).
Commercial should simply identify best products and channel them to people (expertise). This is another useful work.
If their work will survive at internet revolution I don't know. But it is more interesting to know if it will survive at their misuse of their power.....